Two Buildings Constitute HMD Subject to Rent Stabilization

Prior landlord asked the DHCR in 1996 to rule on whether its five-apartment building located at 11 West 84th Street in Manhattan was exempt from rent stabilization. Landlord's next-door building at 11 1/2 West 84th Street contained 20 rent-stabilized apartments. In 1997, the DRA ruled that the building and the other building did not constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling (HMD) and therefore the building wasn't rent stabilized.

Tenants appealed, and the DHCR sent the case back to the DRA for further investigation in 1999. The DHCR noted that the two buildings had a common heating system until a few years before the DRA's order was issued and that some questions hadn't been answered by the DHCR's inspector. In 2002, the DRA ruled that the building was part of a HMD. Inspection found remnants of steam and water pipes that had been cut and capped, indicating there had been a common heating system for the two buildings on the rent stabilization base date. In addition, the two buildings had a history of common ownership, common courtyard, and other common characteristics. Current landlord, who purchased the building and the next-door building under a separate deed, appealed. The DHCR sent the case back to the DRA for further investigation. The DRA again ruled for tenants and landlord appealed.

The DHCR ruled against landlord, affirming that the building was part of an HMD. Both buildings were constructed between January and June 1892 under a common building permit. On and after the July 1, 1974, rent stabilization base date, the building and the other building had a long history of common ownership and common management, and the buildings had been conveyed by a single deed with a single metes and bounds description. Both buildings had been conveyed as a single building known as 11 - 11 1/2 West 84th Street from April 1934 through May 1986. The buildings' 1939 HPD I-card showed that the building at that time obtained heat from the next-door building. Landlord submitted no proof as to when the heating systems were separated. In addition, the buildings had an identical front facade and, although this facade contained a solid line between the two buildings, such line was negligible in comparison with the remainder of the facade. The buildings also had an uninterrupted cornice above the first floor and shared a common rear yard. The roofs on the front portion of the two buildings had a common/uninterrupted parapet wall and a common wall that was approximately 20 feet from the front of the buildings, which forked out, creating an air shaft between the two buildings. The two buildings also had a common chimney. Despite requests for additional information from the DHCR, landlord didn't provide sufficient information concerning whether the building had common electrical usage/metering with the other building. These common features and facilities outweighed the fact that there were separate building entrances, bell buzzer systems, and basements.

11 Realty NY, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XL420001RP (12/17/21)[11-pg. document]